German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer would describe the situation as an inability for conversation – where the distance of mutual understanding between conversation partners is so great, the sides so entrenched in their positions and the latter's foundations so far apart to facilitate two monologues, instead of dialogue.

That is precisely what has happened with the matter of voting rights in Estonia. No one had had a chance to even analyze the Social Democrats' compromise proposal before three buckets of mud had already been hurled at party leader Lauri Läänemets. When analysis finally followed, it turned out that the positions of most people who had lamented the proposal are so superficial that one would expect them to sit quietly and listen to others before making strongly worded statements.

What's stopping them from becoming Estonian citizens?

Allow me to start by trying to answer the age-old question of why won't Russian citizens simply become Estonian ones. Yes, there are those who simply do not want to. But they form an obvious minority. Most of them cannot get Estonian citizenship. For example, the 80-year-old lady living in Narva who has never needed Estonian in her life and for whom these will be the last elections. She would like to speak Estonian and have Estonian citizenship, but would anyone really expect her to learn it in the time she has left?

Or the thousands of spouses of former Soviet soldiers who cannot get Estonian citizenship even if they meet all requirements for integration? Or what about the 17-year-old who needs to get rid of their Russian citizenship to get an Estonian one but cannot do that because their father, living in Russia, is refusing to grant permission, which is necessary for renouncing Russian citizenship.

The young entrepreneur who, after seeking to renounce their Russian citizenship, received a letter notifying them of a criminal investigation against them in Russia (which again rules out the possibility of renouncing citizenship).

In some cases, the Russian embassy demands to see additional proof, which – you guessed it – requires the person to travel to Russia. In others, proceedings are launched only for the case to have gone nowhere since the start of the Ukraine war three years ago.

I would very much like it if everyone permanently living in Estonia would be connected to Estonia through citizenship, but there are various objective reasons why this is not the case. Russia is reluctant to allow our people to renounce its citizenship.

How would revoking voting rights harm Estonia?

Now, allow me to recall why I believe stripping non-citizens living in Estonia of their right to vote (in local elections – ed.) is not in Estonia's interests.

First of all, it is not customary for democratic societies to vilify or condemn groups of people based on external characteristics. Guilt and responsibility are individual in the democratic system.

There are those among Russian citizens who do not share the core values of our society, while there are people like that also among Estonian citizens. Disloyal individuals make up a minority of Russian citizens in Estonia, whereas the latter include a lot of Estonian patriots, as demonstrated by the latest Integration Monitoring. Why, then, are we looking to treat them all the same?

Secondly, it goes to the heart of democracy that political parties need to maximize their election results through political activity, as opposed to replacing voters. Because different voter groups have different preferences, stripping voting rights from some would amount to extensive election results manipulation, especially in Ida-Viru County cities and Tallinn.

In the capital, the Center Party would lose around half of its votes, which would go to Isamaa and Reform. This, of course, is a big part of the reason why some forces are so passionate about this issue. What could be cozier than dressing personal gain up as concern for national interests.

The Social Democrats have been accused of opposing the revocation of voting rights not because we love democracy but because we're after "Russian votes."

Calculating the effect of the change on party ratings only requires a cursory knowledge of basic school mathematics. The effect is there only for parties that enjoy different levels of support from national minorities. The Center Party, which virtually lacks "Estonian votes," stands to lose the most, while Isamaa, who do not have "Russian votes," would be the biggest winner. The Social Democrats, who have more or less the same number of supporters in both groups, will neither gain nor lose.

Thirdly, the proposal undermines social cohesion. In the nearest perspective by – as pointed out by Marju Lauristin and other experts – creating defiance in loyal people and pushing them away from Estonia. And we all know who stands ready to take them under its rhetorical wing. Also because it is a threat to democracy when local governments are ruled by people whom the majority of residents does not support. People will no longer feel represented.

Municipal authorities will in turn look to regions and sectors where their voters are, which will lead to even greater isolation of the Russian-speaking minority, which is obviously a security concern for Estonia.

The Social Democrats' proposal

These are the thoroughly reasoned views of the Social Democratic Party, which are based on our understanding of liberal democracy and the core tenet of integration theory, according to which a minority that is concerned for its identity and social status will turn away from society and start to radicalize on its fringes.

Of course, it is possible to challenge these views, but it needs to be done through solid arguments, instead of declarative shouting an superficial intuition.

The Social Democrats' recent proposal to require non-citizens to register as a precondition for their right to vote – where the individual declares to share Estonia's core values – is a compromise for reducing the influence of pro-Putin foreigners at local elections.

Voter registration is hardly a new phenomenon; we also do it for European Parliament elections, while it is a universal obligation in some countries. Introducing additional conditions for foreigners in this process is not just tolerated by the constitution, it is required, as pointed out by one of its authors, Liia Hänni.

The proposal avoids taking away an entire group's right to participate in elections and replaces it with an individual approach. Everyone who wishes to participate in local democracy, and shares Estonia's core values, would retain the right to do so. This is how the proposal corresponds with the first aforementioned principle (the individuality of responsibility in a liberal democracy) as well as the third (avoids pushing away loyal people), while infringing on the second principle (manipulation of elections results) to a far lesser degree compared to revoking the right to vote of all non-citizens.

I must admit I was baffled to read several commentators' position, according to which the Social Democrats' proposal of taking away the right to vote of some Russian citizens, who do not wish to demonstrate their loyalty, is undemocratic because you cannot require people to swear loyalty in a democracy.

The same people are vocally demanding we strip the voting right of all people belonging to a group, irrespective of their views, limiting the democratic representation of local councils and restricting rights the constitution provides for minorities. Which position constitutes a greater infringement on democracy?

While it is true that our initial proposal had a role for the Internal Security Service (ISS) in the voter registration process, the relevant debate quickly drowned out the core of the proposal. We admit that it is sensible to remove this reference and replace it with a list of offenses, which would rule out one's registration as a voter. I'm sure there are other aspects of the proposal which can be challenged and which we could calmly discuss.

We stand ready to hold that discussion. For Estonia.

PS: Over the past decade, public debate in Estonia has gotten to a point where it boils over not in hours, but mere minutes. I vividly remember when the national broadcaster failed to play the national anthem on New Year's Eve one year. "I suppose no one thought of it, oh well." But no, demands for public apologies, down to calls for the president to resign, went up on the first day of the new year.

We are getting used to the great pace and, consequently, low quality of debate. Alas, it has a direct effect also on the quality of political decisions, as the politicians are the first to adjust.

Few bother to write long texts, even fewer to read them. The positions voiced need to be high-contrast and in opposition to one another; otherwise, you risk the press and social media algorithms ignoring them altogether.

One's memoirs are the last place where one can calmly explain political choices. One day, we'll be able to read from there that while both sides felt it was possible to resolve the matter in calm and substantive compromise, it was not seen as politically attractive because things that are "black and white" always take off better. However, low-quality politics might come back to bite us in existential matters.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!